The Nation as a Framework for Political Life

The stable existence of the state is impossible without nationalist discourse.     

Senate Apportionment as a Source of Political Inequality

Political scientists have long known that the equal representation of states in the U.S. Senate and the placement of state lines might disadvantage politically relevant groups, granting some citizens greater voting weight in the chamber. Yet we lack systematic, longitudinal evidence that identifies the groups disadvantaged by Senate malapportionment, the sources of this disadvantage, and probes the policy consequences. In this article, I compare each state's liberalism and racial composition with its relative voting weight in the Senate over time. Additionally, I examine whether roll‐call coalitions in the Senate map onto these patterns of state ideology and racial composition.     

Plainly Wrong

English law and wider common law jurisprudence have endorsed the condition that an appellate court should reject a trial judge's finding of fact which it believes is ‘plainly wrong’. Courts have not explained what makes a finding plainly wrong, however. Scholars have largely ignored the issue. This article draws on recent work in epistemology to provide a new analysis of the plainly wrong standard. Rationally, a court should not believe both (1) that a judge is a better fact finder and (2) that the judge was wrong to find some fact. If it does believe both, it should abandon the belief it is less confident of. So, a court should reject a judge's finding if it is more confident that it is wrong than that the judge is a better fact finder. This analysis has implications for review of administrative fact finding and for judicial deference generally.     

作为公共生活技艺之道的政治哲学

政治哲学不但显现于伟大著作之中,而且是人们在公共领域的行为指南,成为对公共性商讨与争论的技艺之道。因此,当代政治哲学需要从理想彼岸的设计之思中解放出来。在公共生活中,政治哲学不仅是实然状态的反思与应然状态的解释,更是实现这种反思与解释的技艺之道。超越追求中立性政治真理的局限性,政治哲学需要为人的政治选择提供判断、决定、主张或服从的能力,这是它的实践性所在。这体现在:在超越追求客观共识的政治科学与追求最优结果的政治哲学之上的,是使人真正具备积极的批判思维能力、建设性的问题解决能力、完备的阐释能力、包容的沟通能力以及系统性的信息控制能力等为要件的作为公共生活技艺的政治哲学。由此,政治哲学不再是空中楼阁,既揭示了政治事务的争辩本性,又实现了人在追求理想政治状态过程中变得更加明智的价值追求。     

Lying,Speech and Impersonal Harm

Law and Philosophy - Should the law punish the mere utterance of lies even if the listener has not been deceived? Seana Shiffrin has recently answered this question in the affirmative. She argues...     

The Jury as a Translation of Democratic Participation and Political Conflict

In this response to Valerie Hans's Presidential address, I use her “legal translating” term to argue that the implementation of liberal democratic structures in new democracies opens new opportunities to translate the jury system into and onto new democratic societies. While policy makers have concerns about the strength and vibrancy of lay participation in the legal system, policy makers' decisions to adopt trial by jury are not always democratic. Nonetheless, the consequence of the translation of trial by jury furthers democratic development. Using Nicaragua, Mexico, and Russia as case studies, I suggest that one goal of policy makers who attempt to adopt trial by jury is to reduce the discretionary power of judges who remain from the prior government. Comparative trial‐by‐jury research can contribute more to our understanding of democratic development than prior research has indicated.     

The Ru-net as a Mirror of Russia's Political and Ethnic Problems

A group of scholars presents the preliminary results of their research on ethnopolitical agendas found on the Russian Internet. The authors analyze the discourses of four Internet communities, including nationalists, leftists, liberals, and supporters of the party of power.     

The Influence of Lying Body Position on Handwriting

Although the problem of handwriting variability due to lying body position has practical significance, particularly for last will cases, it has not been sufficiently studied. The presented experiment aimed to recognize how such posture may influence handwriting features. Samples of text and signatures were collected from 50 healthy individuals, aged 23–58, produced in three postures: typical sitting position (SP) and two different lying positions (LP1 & LP2). Using the SP sample of each individual as a specimen, eleven characteristics in LP1 and LP2 samples were evaluated as similar or different. Nine other features were measured with a specialized software, and their conformity was tested with Student's t‐test. Although none of the characteristics differed significantly in most cases, variation occurred in pen pressure, margins, baselines, and heights of letters. Additionally, a series of blind tests revealed that lying position of the individuals did not hinder the possibility to identify their writings.     

作为政治修辞的天赋人权

天赋人权乃是一种应然的道德权利观念而非实然的法定权利,它是针对君权神授论而提出的一种政治学说。在天赋人权说看来,政治共同体是由人民签订契约而形成的,因而国家和君主的统治权源于人民的出让而非上帝的授予。人民签订契约,交出自己的一部分权利,目的是使政治共同体能够保护其原本具有的自由与平等。捍卫人之自由平等、使人成其为人,乃是天赋人权说的核心内涵。作为反对君权神授、主张社会契约和捍卫自由平等的政治修辞,天赋人权说并未过时,它依然是一种推进人权事业的思想源泉。     

主权:政治现实、道德理想与法治桥梁

准确把握主权概念是清晰理解国际法与国际关系的基础。只有消除一些误解和歧义才有可能树立正确的观念。就现实而言,主权是对内的命令、调控以及以此为基础的对外代表与参与,主要功能是政府对其行为与利益的辩护与防卫。其根源是社会分工形成的人群分层,并在此基础上形成的制度惯性以及人们对治理形式的路径依赖。其内核是无涉于道德和法律的。在认清主权的非社会契约性、非神圣绝对性之后,必须承认,主权在世界上仍会长期存在。因而有必要在人本主义的价值基点上塑造其理想,即要求主权发挥引领、代表、服务人民,在相互依赖、面临共同未来的人类处境中密切合作的职能。为此,有必要进一步完善权力—权利三角形,使主权的运作受国内宪政和国际法治的引导与制约,促进社会的健康和谐发展。     

Pinpointing the Powerful: Covoting Network Centrality as a Measure of Political Influence

This article introduces centrality in covoting networks as a measure of influence. Based on a simple cueing dynamic, it conceptualizes those lawmakers as most central—and thus as having the greatest signaling influence—who impact the greatest number of colleagues' voting decisions. A formal proof and an agent‐based simulation show that cue‐providers are always more central than followers; hence, we can use real‐world voting data to identify the most influential legislators. To confirm the measure's construct validity, we predict covoting centrality in the European Parliament and find those factors that are expected to impact legislators' influence to predict their centrality.     

Defending the Right To Do Wrong

Are there moral rights to do moral wrong? A right to do wrong is a right that others not interfere with the right-holder’s wrongdoing. It is a right against enforcement of duty, that is a right that others not interfere with one’s violation of one’s own obligations. The strongest reason for moral rights to do moral wrong is grounded in the value of personal autonomy. Having a measure of protected choice (that is a right) to do wrong is a condition for an autonomous life and for autonomous moral self-constitution. This view has its critics. Responding to these objections reveals that none refute the coherence of the concept of a ‘moral right to do moral wrong’. At most, some objections successfully challenge the weight and frequency of the personal autonomy reasons for such rights. Autonomy-based moral rights to do moral wrong are therefore conceptually possible as well as, at least on occasion, actual.     

The Morality of Lying and the Murderer at the Door

Law and Philosophy - The article engages with some of the main claims in chapter 1 of Seana Shiffrin’s book Speech Matters. There, Shiffrin sets out a case for a general moral prohibition on...